Chistianity was created because it was conveinient, and its creators built it on much older religons, mainly paganism...just look at the
Catholic Church and Constantine for an example.

Thanks, Sinny. I agree with you....
I had long ago thrown out my "upbringing" in the "Church of England" and have studied Wicca, Buddhism, the Urantia Book....and several other
doctrines....
but I had still maintained that the guy DID exist. Now, I'm wondering.....
there is SO MUCH to learn, and SO LITTLE TIME!

I agree with that Wildtimes ! I feel like my mind is a thimble, and the amount of knowledge out there could fill an ocean. My feeling, based purely
on intuition, is that Jesus did exist, but he was a very different man to the one we have been taught about.

My feeling, based purely on intuition, is that Jesus did exist, but he was a very different man to the one we have been taught
about.

Right? It's very weird. I am so keen on figuring out what is 'accurate' and what is 'legend'....
I'm SO GLAD that people are interested in this subject now!!

Mind you, i really shouldnt let myself get distracted, im only on paper 3 of Urantia!!! by the time i get the kids sorted i dont seem to have much
time. As you say, much to learn and not much time to do it in.

Mind you, i really shouldnt let myself get distracted, im only on paper 3 of Urantia!!! by the time i get the kids sorted i dont seem to have
much time. As you say, much to learn and not much time to do it in.

Hang in there, dear! They will grow up, and then you'll have lots of time.....
raising kids is the most important job in the world. Take your time. Just keep in mind that there is so much out there when you're not so
distracted!! (My two are 23 and 21...) The whole world will be open to you when that job is on the "back burner" (though it never ends, of
course)....

It matters not whether the historical Jesus truly existed or not, and it matters not that his mythology has been manipulated by others. All mythology
is manipulated by someone, but mythology does not survive, and much of it since time immemorial, because of manipulation. Mythology survives because
of its message.

There is such a remarkable similarity between the Jesus myth and the Heracles, or Hercules myth that it is a valid observation to suggest that Jesus
is modeled after other myths. What is disturbing to me is that the factual nature of the historical Jesus is used so much and so often that it cannot
but help but undermine the message. Could you imagine 2,000 years from now internet forums and sites posting data to prove Spiderman is not true and
never really existed? Who today actually believes that they could be bit by a radio active spider and suddenly develop super powers?

Who, however, would or could intelligently argue that "with great power comes great responsibility" is a false message because the message is told
in comic books? With great power does come great responsibility! Batman's struggles to somehow align his darkness with the light is not just a
silly comic book tale, it is outstanding mythology that offer its readers life lessons. Superman's tale of struggle to find his own humanity is no
less astounding with plenty of life lessons, and the dysfunctional co-dependent struggles of the Fantastic Four, or the deep analysis of racism in the
X-Men are life lessons that teach much, much more than any factual history lesson of the Manson family, or the klu klux klan ever could.

It matters not whether the historical Jesus truly existed or not, and it matters not that his mythology has been manipulated by others. All
mythology is manipulated by someone, but mythology does not survive, and much of it since time immemorial, because of manipulation. Mythology survives
because of its message.

I agree with you, Jean Paul. It doesn't really matter in the end whether he existed or not...the "Golden Rule" is what matters. Nevertheless, I'd
like to discuss the modern theories of whether the man "Jesus Christ" existed or not. The message that comes with him is not in question. Just the
historical facts.

So the word 'Easter' (Ester) in Anglo Saxon was used for both the Passover and the Christian celebration of the resurrection...
...as it is in other European languages to this day.

I have no issue with that. I do think that modern "Christian" traditions are derived from pre-Christian practices....
and also that we, as a learning species, should look into the roots of those traditions with calm, clear minds.

So the word 'Easter' (Ester) in Anglo Saxon was used for both the Passover and the Christian celebration of the resurrection...
...as it is in other European languages to this day.

I have no issue with that. I do think that modern "Christian" traditions are derived from pre-Christian practices....
and also that we, as a learning species, should look into the roots of those traditions with calm, clear minds.

I agree Christian traditions were derived from pre-Christian practices ... from the Hebrews/Jews.

Christians 'baptised' some local practices/traditions and made them part of Christianity...
...the date of Christmas is an example of this and so are rabbits...
...but there is a big difference between origin and cultural inclusion.

The Search for a Historical Jesus or exposing such historicity as fraudulent is
nothing new at all. Long before Albert Schweitzer there was this Quixotic quest and those who've attempted to use this quest to prove Jesus'
actuality have not done the message any more favors than those who've attempted to disprove Jesus' historical existence.

More importantly, we live in a day and age where the word myth is primarily used to mean "falsehood" or "lie", only further undermining the
genuine power of the myth. This "expose" of a "fabrication" is ages old now, and nothing new. It is newer that the word myth is used the way it
is than this expose of Jesus is. What do you hope to accomplish, even if you were able to prove Jesus never existed? Do you think this will somehow
get Christians to take the message more seriously?

What new or revelatory meaning comes from proving Jesus was a fabrication, and has it occurred to you that proving a negative is infinitely more
difficult than proving a positive. However, just because it cannot be definitively proved that Jesus actually existed, this in itself doesn't mean
he didn't. What about Hercules? Did he exist, or is this not important to you? What of Prometheus or Pandora, or Sisyphus? Once you're done
exposing Jesus will you move on to expose the fabrication of these mythological heroes and if so, what is accomplished by doing so?

So the word 'Easter' (Ester) in Anglo Saxon was used for both the Passover and the Christian celebration of the resurrection...
...as it is in other European languages to this day.

I have no quarrel with the etymology of the term. I have issues with whether or not this man really existed. Previously I believed he did, and my
entire "spiritual view" of the Divine was based on that.

If, in fact, he did not exist (but was a 'reincarnation' of all the prior myths so similar to his 'story'), I have the right and responsibility to
question the sources (further) that say he did.

I am in no way disregarding the message; the Golden Rule. That notwithstanding, I'd like to know if "JC" was a spin-off of other traditions and
actually a recycled "legend" a la King Arthur, Apollo, Zeus, Aphrodite, Mithra....et al...

It doesn't change my conviction that "his" message is correct.....not in any way.

I am not the "decider" on what is allowed or disallowed on ATS. I am however a member with his own opinions and knowledge. I was born and raised a
Catholic, was an alter boy as a child, and got in plenty of trouble in parochial school for asking the pointed questions I did. Some would say I am a
bad Catholic, or at best a mediocre one, but you know what? There are plenty of people who claim Jesus was a mediocre Jew, and of course, there were
Pharisee's and Sanhedrin who 2,000 years ago, mythologically speaking, who claimed Jesus was flat out a bad Jew.

Jesus' message, however, goes well beyond "the golden rule". When I was confirmed a "soldier of Christ" as a child, I was not so naive as to think
that my own passage to heaven was predicated on accepting a historical figure into my heart. I understood that by accepting Jesus as my "personal
savior" that this meant I understood the message and agreed to live by it. That message includes showing gratitude to God for all that has been
manifested, and more importantly for all that will be manifested. Jesus always said a prayer of gratitude before performing a miracle, not after, but
before. The message in this is clear as day to me, and that message is that there was never any doubt in Jesus' mind that he would indeed perform
miracles. Otherwise why be grateful before hand?

That is just one example of the many messages the New Testament offers. In wanting to talk about this idea of a historical Jesus versus a fraudulent
history, I find it interesting that you've used the word "want". Jesus was a master of Old Testament passages and knew well the beginning to the
beautiful Psalm:

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

~Psalms 23~

I suspect that Jesus had a profound understanding of the Law of Attraction and understood the serious problem with wanting. If like attracts like,
then what do you think want will attract?

I have no more come here to crucify you than I wish to be crucified, but if you genuinely would like a discussion on this matter, then I suppose
you're stuck with me in the same way those nuns and priest were while I was in parochial school.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.